Care provider rated inadequate after inspection

The health watchdog said it was the second time Copthorne Complete Home Care had been rated inadequate, and that it was requiring the business to take 'further action' to protect people.

Reacting to the findings the Shrewsbury-based business' manager, Thamary Masango, said: "We do not feel supported when it comes to the CQC. I feel when it is coming to us, it is coming to break us, I do not feel supported."

Copthorne Complete Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes.

The CQC said the inspection was carried out to follow up on concerns from a previous inspection.

The latest inspection has seen the service's overall rating – as well as the areas of safe, effective, responsive, and well-led – rated inadequate again.

Caring has also been rated 'requires improvement' again.

It means the service remains in special measures.

As a result it will be kept 'under close review' by the CQC.

The watchdog said it is also taking further regulatory action, which Copthorne Complete Homecare Limited can appeal, and CQC will report on when legally able to do so.

Andy Brand, CQC deputy director of operations in the midlands, said: “When we inspected Copthorne Complete Homecare Limited, it was disappointing that we continued to identify shortfalls that compromised people’s safety and wellbeing.

“We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people using a homecare service to treat people safely and effectively, but this wasn’t the case.

“Leaders were not doing enough to identify risks to people. It was also concerning that when incidents occurred that placed people at harm, investigations and follow up actions hadn’t always been done.

“Staff had recorded injuries they had observed on people on body maps, but we saw no investigations into the causes of these. By not reviewing accidents and incidents to learn lessons, the provider put people at risk of avoidable harm because they could happen again.

“In addition, managers didn’t work in partnership with other agencies to ensure the safe care and treatment of people. For example, where there was an allegation of abuse, this information hadn’t been shared with the local authority safeguarding team to ensure the person was safe.

“We have told leaders where we expect to see rapid, widespread improvements and will continue to monitor the service closely to keep people safe during this time. We will return to check on their progress and won’t hesitate to take further action if people aren’t receiving the care they have a right to expect.”

Amongst issues found by the inspectors were that staff still hadn’t received appropriate support and training to carry out their roles effectively, and that the safeguarding policy contained inaccurate information regarding important contact details for people.

The CQC said staff didn’t have access to risk assessments to aid their understanding about potential risks to people, and processes didn’t support the safe management of medicines.

It added that people’s rights around consent weren’t considered in planning how they wanted their care delivered, staff didn’t have information to manage people’s health conditions such as epilepsy, dementia, agitation and skin conditions, and staff had not received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) but didn’t understand the implications of this on their role.

Ms Masango said she did not agree with all the findings but added: "I am not saying we are very perfect because when it comes to the CQC they are our mentors, they are here to teach us and make us better."

She said: "It looks like when it comes to the CQC and inspections they want things dedicated in paper, they do not put the theory and the practicing together."